6 crucial facts that you cannot forget about the Trump political trial process

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (opens in new window)
• Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
• Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)

(CNN) - It is easy to feel overwhelmed by all the information that has been known in the political trial investigation against President Donald Trump due to his conduct against Ukraine.

There are dozens of witnesses, thousands of pages of transcripts and two political parties doing everything possible to tell the story that best makes them look from the known facts (and, in Trump's case, frequently with invented "facts"). All this will be further complicated as of this Wednesday, when the House of Representatives begins its phase of public hearings in the investigation.

• LOOK: The 'Giuliani factor' that could condemn Trump in the political trial

But there is something that should not be lost sight of when following public hearings - and the inevitable turn on these testimonies -: we already have a very clear and decidedly consistent understanding of what happened before, during and after the call they held. on July 25, President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky.

These are the key facts we know:

1. Trump in the call made it clear to Zelensky that the United States has long been for Ukraine and that this country does not belong in the same way. Also that he wanted an investigation into the location of the server that was hacked to the National Democratic Committee. In addition, he expressed his desire to investigate - without any factual evidence - about charges against Joe and Hunter Biden for alleged corrupt practices in Ukraine. All this is contained in the transcript of the call published by the White House.

2. In real time, concerns were expressed about the nature of the call, including those of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an expert on Ukraine from the National Security Council, who was present at the communication and immediately after addressed his boss and expressed his Concerns about what he believed was Trump using his presidential powers to affect a potential rival of the elections in 2020.

3. The Ukrainians knew, since the beginning of August, that the suspension in the disbursement of almost $ 400 million in military aid was probably related to the Trump administration's desire for a public announcement that made the investigation into Biden known.

4. In early September, Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union , told an important Zelensky assistant that military aid was probably related to the announcement of the investigation.

5. The White House secretary general, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters last month that the aid was linked to Ukrainians committing themselves to investigating corruption in their country, a strategy he described as a common practice.

6. Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was assigned the task of directing a kind of foreign policy in the shadow in the country.

• READ: What does the expression 'quid pro quo' mean and what does Trump have to do with the 'impeachment'?

Those six basic facts draw a very dark image for the president and his team of senior officials. While it seems that the argument that Republicans will use to refute is that Trump did not really believe he was committing a quid pro quo, the accumulation of evidence - from closed-door testimonials and public statements - suggests that it was not a question. a single phone call between Trump and Zelensky, but rather a broader pressure campaign that lasted for months and was clearly aimed primarily at using a foreign government to muddle a political rival.

What is truly prominent, and worth keeping in mind when viewing these public hearings, is the consistency with which people from a wide variety of branches of government, whose work lives were related to this episode of Ukraine, describe what happened .

From the State Department to the Pentagon, there is a clear consistency in how all this developed. And it seems that these versions of the events also support the story of the initial whistleblower that was made public at the end of September and was the starting point of this novel.

• LOOK: Political trial: key diplomat changes testimony and admits quid pro quo with Ukraine

That coherence is important and revealing, especially when Trump suggests that the witnesses are "anti-Trump" or part of the so-called "deep state" that has long been supposedly conspiring against him. Ask yourself this: is it reasonable to believe that more than half a dozen witnesses, in a wide variety of agencies within the government, somehow conspired to "catch" Trump by telling similar versions of what happened in that July 25 call ? And that all of them are "anti-Trump", despite the null evidence that any of them really is?

The facts, combined with something called "logic," simply do not confirm any of that. That's why Trump and his allies will do everything possible in the coming days and weeks to cloud the water about what really happened.

In truth, it is not so complicated. Go back and read the six facts we know. That is the key to all this. And no spin will change them.

ComplaintimpeachmentPolitical JudgmentPoliticsUkraine